Second petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 420/468/471 IPC concerning a franchise dispute. The Court noted it had earlier declined to quash and permitted contentions before the Trial Court; dismissed the petition as withdrawn with exemption from personal appearance until arguments on charge conclude.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~72
Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Ms. Urmila Sharma, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State with SI Parveen, PS Subhash Place
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
1 “the impugned FIR”
2 “IPC”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2025 at 16:00:51
CRL.M.C. 3178/2025 Page 1 of 4
following directions were issued by order dated 22nd January, 2020:
“1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, praying that the FIR No. 751/2014 under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC, registered with Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed.
2. Mr Avi Singh, learned ASC appearing for the State states that the chargesheet and a supplementary charge sheet has already been filed and cognizance has been taken.
3. The status report has also been filed. A plain reading of the FIR in question indicates that respondent no.2 has alleged that he has been induced to enter into a franchise agreement for dealing in garments under the brand name of SEPIA, which is owned by the petitioner. He alleges that he was assured a return of Rs. 2.85 lakhs per month. He also claims that he had paid a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in cash in May, 2013, however, there is no document evidencing payment/receipt of such a large sum in cash. The complainant also states that the said amount had been borrowed from other persons.
4. The status report does not indicate that any investigation was done by examining the income tax returns of the complainant in this regard.
5. The petitioners also allege that it is the modus operandi of respondent no.2 (complainant) to enter into agreements with parties and subsequently ( I deny his signatures on the agreements and file false complaints to extort funds from them.
6. The status report indicates that respondent no2. was asked to disclose all other complaints and FIR filed by him but he had refused to do so. This Court is, prima facie, of the view that the investigation has, thus, remained incomplete.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 is present in Court and states that respondent no.2 shall make full disclosure of all FIRs and complaints made by him before any authority. Respondent no.2 is bound down to the said statement.
8. The Investigating Officer is directed to investigate and collect details of other complaints filed by respondent no.2. The IO shall investigate the income tax returns filed by respondent no.2 to ascertain whether any disclosure of payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in cash has been made to the income tax authorities and also examine the sources, thereof.
9. Let a supplementary report, indicating the additional enquiries made and material collected, be filed before the concerned Trial Court.
10. Insofar as quashing of the FIR in question is concerned, this Court does not consider it apposite to do so. It will be open for the petitioner to urge all contentions before the Trial court.
11. The petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2025 at 16:00:51
CRL.M.C. 3178/2025 Page 2 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2025 at 16:00:51
CRL.M.C. 3178/2025 Page 3 of 4
the Petitioner, he shall be free to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies as available in law.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 6, 2025/ab
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2025 at 16:00:51
CRL.M.C. 3178/2025 Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second quashing petition should be entertained when liberty to argue at the charge stage was already granted before the Trial Court.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajender @ Raju Goenka
State of NCT of Delhi
Anr.
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
